Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Question: why does it make sense to use the ASMs in this fashion? Am I missing something?

Many antiship cruise missile have a ground attack mode, and vice versa. Tomahawk for instance is usually a ground attack missile but can be used in antiship configuration. Kalibr is an example of the opposite.

The main difference is in sensors and navigation (ground attack is usually satellite or terrain map guided, antiship is radar or IR) but even then you can just put both in 1 missile and add versatility in exchange for unit cost.

As for why, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy at this moment so might as well use the antiship missiles for something.
 

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
As for why, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy at this moment so might as well use the antiship missiles for something.

Not doubting the capability whatsoever. It is a good idea to do.

However, I'm just surprised - perhaps stupidly - the Russians would not have something more specific and better suited to use first or instead. In my mind, using the Onyx is like the US using SM-3s as attack missiles. There are better weapons for that and don't cost that much...

I am wrong - or my reaction is wrong - on some level. Just trying to understand why.
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
NATO countries can, of course, produce VASTLY more - and better - war materiel than Russia.
They won't supply it to Ukraine, in any meaningful numbers right now.
Western Europe (Germany, France) does NOT want to damage relations with Russia beyond repair.
The US does NOT want the war to end too quickly.

These two objectives culminated on the agreement that no decisive offensive equipment capable of en masse maneuver will be given to Ukraine. This horrible hell will drag on, until all sides decide they simply don't want to fight any more.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Not doubting the capability whatsoever. It is a good idea to do.

However, I'm just surprised - perhaps stupidly - the Russians would not have something more specific and better suited to use first or instead. In my mind, using the Onyx is like the US using SM-3s as attack missiles. There are better weapons for that and don't cost that much...

I am wrong - or my reaction is wrong - on some level. Just trying to understand why.
They have their advantages. For example, they come fast - which matters for time-sensitive applications.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
Go back and read my post carefully.
And you should research your WW2 history more carefully.

Pearl Harbor will always happen because:
1. the US will cut off major industrial resources/primary-products (scrap steel, oil, etc) supplies to Japan once Japanese runs out of gold (this is because the Japanese industrial capacity can NOT both sustain a war in China, AND supply more worth of consumer products to the US than they import industrial resources/primary-products in order to accumulate gold, thus Japan will run out of gold eventually), AND,
2. the Japanese will HAVE TO secure South East Asia's oil supply to feed back to Japanese mainland where the industrial bases are. In order to secure these, the Japanese will HAVE TO invade and hold on to the Philippines, which was a US colony back then.

These two pretty much means that the US will eventually stop exporting essential industrial resources/primary-products to Japan, leading to Japanese pre-emptive invade Philippines to brace for the "de-coupling" of US-Japan trade by securing the shift of resources supply routes from US-Japan to SEA-Japan. This will give the US the excuse to embargo, and onto confrontation, and eventually leads to Pearl Harbor attack.

This is exactly why the US was one of the first countries to reject the recognition of Manchukuo, when even the KMT leadership was really turning a blind eye to it. This was NOT because the US was really trying to be a good ally to the KMT's ROC. The US was NOBODY's true ally or friend. Even though the US supplies the essential materials/resources that enabled the Japanese to invade China, the US was NEVER Japan's friend. The US "entrapped" Japan and ROC in her own grand plan, ever since the Washington Naval Treaty.

The US wanted Japanese Empire to get reliant on US resource and exports.
The US wanted Japanese to get bogged down in quagmire in China.

The US wanted to eventually start a war with Japan. If the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor, the US will start projecting into SEA, to cut off and harass Japanese maritime supply lines of resources from SEA to Japan, and equipment and supplies to sustain military presence in SEA. This will ware down Japan significantly. Pearl Harbor was not a stupid idea, it was an inevitability. Of course, Japanese defeat was also an inevitability, Pearl Harbor might have altered the course of the war, but it will NOT change the eventual outcome.


It’s probably not entirely true thar Pearl Harbor will inevitably happen. In japan there was two contending fractions, one advocated the northern option out of Manchuria into Outer Mongolia and Russian Siberia, the other advocated the southern option south through French Indochina into the Dutch East Indies.

Japanese policy decisively shifted towards the southern option only after early 1940.

The deciding event was the failure of the Kwantung army’s freelance operation to expand Japanese influence into Outer Mongolia as the first step for expansion into Russian Siberia. The Japanese defeat in the hands of the Russians at Nomenhan greatly chastened the imperial Japanese army by highlighting just how inadequate the Japanese army was for the purposes of fighting a modern large scale open field land battle. So from then on the Japanese army stopped pressing for northern expansion that requires fighting the Soviets in precisely that kind of large scale open field land battle.
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
That’s probably not entirely true. In japan there was two contending fractions, one advocated the northern option out of Manchuria into Outer Mongolia and Russian Siberia, the other advocated the southern option south through French Indochina into the Dutch East Indies.

Japanese policy decisively shifted towards the southern option only after early 1940.

The deciding event was the failure of the Kwantung army’s freelance operation to expand Japanese influence into Outer Mongolia as the first step for expansion into Russian Siberia. The Japanese defeat in the hands of the Russians at Nomenhan greatly chastened the imperial Japanese army by highlighting just how inadequate the IJN was for the purposes of fighting a modern large scale open field land battle. So the Japanese army stopped pressing for northern expansion that requires fighting the Soviets in precisely that kind of large scale open field land battle.
Sure, this is a major part of history, I agree. I know very well about this part of history.
I am just not sure how this relates to what I was trying to say.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Not doubting the capability whatsoever. It is a good idea to do.

However, I'm just surprised - perhaps stupidly - the Russians would not have something more specific and better suited to use first or instead. In my mind, using the Onyx is like the US using SM-3s as attack missiles. There are better weapons for that and don't cost that much...

I am wrong - or my reaction is wrong - on some level. Just trying to understand why.

Maybe could have been a time sensitive target, where the speed of the Onyx might have been useful and/or closests
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top